The Hidden Truth About Decision Making in Sport: When Coaches Bench Their Players
- Dr Paul McCarthy
- Sep 1
- 17 min read
Athletic performance hinges on decision making in sport, yet many people misunderstand its role. A coach's choice to bench a player can affect team dynamics, performance outcomes, and individual careers. The ability to select the right players stands out as one of a sport coach's most vital recurring decisions , and it often draws the line between winning and losing.
Athletes and coaches must make decisions under intense pressure at the time they step onto the field . The ever-changing world of sports needs quick choices that can flip a game's outcome . Research shows the effects of these decisions, but the coach's role as the decision-maker doesn't get much attention in current studies . This gap raises concerns because a systematic review of 53 articles with 2,078 participants shows how team sport environments create complex decision-making processes that affect thousands of athletes and coaches .
This piece dives deep into what decision making in sport means. You'll find hidden factors behind a coach's benching decisions and practical frameworks to boost this vital skill. Coaches and players can build stronger relationships and achieve better results by learning these decision-making principles.
Understanding Decision-Making in Sport
Athletic performance goes way beyond physical abilities. Strength and motor skills play their part, but decision making in sport serves as the cognitive engine that drives successful performance. Let's dive into this process and see why it deserves more attention than it gets.
What is decision making in sport?
Athletes make split-second choices by picking the best action from available options. They base these choices on what's happening around them and what they know they can do. This process combines visual search, recognition, recall, and anticipation while dealing with time pressure [1]. Players must handle both what they see outside (game situations, opponent moves) and what they feel inside (self-awareness, confidence) [1].
The brain processes these decisions in three main steps:
Perceptual phase: Athletes get information from their surroundings. They first capture the information through their senses and then interpret what's most important [1].
Decision-making phase: Players review their options. They look at what's happening in the game and think about their own abilities before making a choice [1].
Effector phase: The body executes the chosen movement through the neuromuscular system [1].
Scientists have come up with three different ways to explain how athletes make decisions:
Information processing model: Athletes pick from responses stored in their memory [1].
Ecological dynamics model: Decisions happen naturally as athletes react to their environment without much conscious thought [1].
Naturalistic decision-making (recognition-primed): Experienced players use what they've learned before to make choices on the ground [1].
These different views create a debate about whether athletes actually use their memory when making decisions [1]. This makes it tough for coaches to know how to apply research in their training.
Why it matters more than we think
Game analysis shows that decision making often determines who wins or loses [1]. Good decisions don't just affect one play - they shape the entire game.
Physical skills and talent help athletes develop, but they're not everything. Pep Guardiola puts it well: "Decision-making is trained by playing. You get better the more decisions you have to make, there is no other way" [1]. His words explain how players can improve this mental skill.
Decision making becomes vital when games wind down. Research shows that teams often give up late goals because players get tired and make poor choices [1]. So teams that keep making smart decisions under pressure win more games.
This skill matters to everyone in sports. Coaches need to understand how decisions work to create practice sessions that help players improve. Scientists conducted the largest longitudinal study of decision making in team sports to learn more about what makes expert players different [1].
Top players stand out because they know what to focus on. They pick up important details faster and make better choices quickly [1]. Learning to make good decisions quickly becomes the skill that sets the best apart from the rest.
That's why improving decision making offers one of the best ways to boost athletic performance at every level.
The Three Models of Decision-Making
Sports science has developed three different theoretical frameworks that show how athletes and coaches make decisions during competition. These models give us unique viewpoints on the mental processes that happen when athletes choose actions under pressure.
Information processing model
The information processing model shows decision-making as a sequential loop with four connected parts. First, input refers to information that comes through the senses. New learners often feel overwhelmed by this sensory data, but experienced athletes learn to focus on the right cues. Second, decision-making uses both short and long-term memory to interpret this input and determine the right responses. Third, output is the action taken in response to the situation. Fourth, feedback shows if the response worked well, which helps make better decisions in the future [2].
Athletes use this model to process environmental information during physical activities. The performer sees a situation, decides how to react, and executes a physical response. Experience helps improve this process as athletes develop better mental patterns to recognize and respond to game situations [2].
Elite athletes move from conscious decision-making to more automatic responses as they gain expertise. Research shows they have better attention skills that let them filter out noise and respond quickly [3].
Ecological dynamics model
The ecological dynamics model sees performers as complex adaptive systems - networks of integrated, interacting components that organize themselves under constraints. This model looks at the relationship between performer and environment rather than internal mental processes [4].
Behavior comes from interactions between players and their surroundings. Decision-making "emerges from constraints in the player-environment interaction that push players to pick up informational variables about the possibilities for action afforded in the unfolding dynamics in order to accomplish performance goals" [4].
Gibson's concept of affordances stands at the heart of this approach. These are action possibilities the environment offers that matter to a person. Athletes don't just see their environment - they see how they can act within it [4].
Teams make decisions through collective properties that form "interpersonal synergies." These task-specific organizations couple each person's degrees of freedom with others. Teams can adapt to changing circumstances through properties like dimensional compression, reciprocal compensation, and degeneracy [4].
Recognition-primed decision-making
The Recognition-Primed Decision (RPD) model provides a different view from the previous approaches. It focuses on how experienced decision-makers use pattern recognition in dynamic settings. Klein's model explains that experts in natural settings rely on experience-based intuition [5].
Studies of the RPD model in sports reveal that experts make 60-81% of decisions through intuitive simple matching. They use diagnosis 13-28% of the time and evaluate courses of action in 3-24% of cases [5]. The model shows three levels of situation assessment:
Simple match: Recognizing a situation and picking the first good option
Diagnosis: Adapting typical actions to unfamiliar situations
Evaluation: Testing options through mental visualization [5]
Time pressure affects which decision-making process athletes and coaches use. Players far from action or coaches on the sideline have more time to think and diagnose. Decision-making ranges from intuitive to analytical processes rather than being just one approach [5].
Research has proven the RPD model works in volleyball, handball, ice hockey, and soccer. This shows how experienced performers make quick decisions in their areas of expertise [6].
How Coaches Interpret These Models
Coaches face a huge challenge when they try to turn theoretical models into practical coaching decisions. Research about decision making in sports has grown substantially, but coaches still struggle to use these findings [7]. Theory and practice often exist in separate worlds, which creates problems.
The gap between theory and practice
Academic literature covers decision-making processes extensively. Many coaches work without using this knowledge in their practice. Research shows coaches lack formal training in judgment and decision-making (JDM) because their education often skips this topic [8]. This creates a basic disconnect between what researchers find and what coaches use.
Research and coaching environments have fundamental differences that widen this gap. Researchers value universal validity and strict methods. Coaches deal with uncertainty in sports rehabilitation and training because of small sample sizes and multiple outcome factors [8]. Research shows coaches rarely get time to study and reflect, while researchers rarely do actual coaching [9]. This role separation blocks knowledge transfer.
Young athletes' development suffers because of this gap [9]. Young people risk falling behind physically, technically, tactically, socially, and psychologically without collaboration between researchers and practitioners. Elite sports contexts make this challenge harder because social complexities make theoretical models tough to apply [10].
There's another reason why theory and practice don't match up well. To name just one example, discussions about trauma in high-performance settings mix up 'traumatic' experiences with just 'upsetting' or challenging ones [11]. This lack of clear difference leads coaches to either avoid needed challenges or push too hard, wrongly thinking all hardship builds strength.
Misunderstandings that lead to poor decisions
Coaches often make poor choices because of these common misunderstandings:
Oversimplification of models: Coaches pick one-size-fits-all methods that ignore athletes' unique psychological profiles, cultural backgrounds, and development stages [11]. Athletes disconnect from coaches when their individual needs go unmet.
System 1 overreliance: Quick decisions force coaches to rely too much on System 1 thinking (quick choices without systematic evaluation) [8]. This approach fails in complex situations despite being fast.
Misapplied heuristics: Mental shortcuts help coaches judge quickly but can cause systematic errors [8]. Coaches must balance speed and thoroughness carefully.
Narrative bias: Compelling stories about performance can trap coaches, especially when these stories make them look good. The "German winning mentality" myth lived on despite stats proving otherwise [7].
Groupthink: Teams of coaches who agree on everything can make bad decisions just to stay unified [12]. Teams stick to failing tactics because they resist change during rough patches.
Power dynamics make these misunderstandings worse in elite sports. Athletes rarely question their coaches' decisions or methods [10]. Both sides struggle to make neutral informed choices, yet many people miss this point when promoting shared decision-making.
Coaches think they give athletes freedom, power, and choices by including them in decisions. These options usually stay within limits set by club or practitioner philosophy and what coaches see as best practice [10]. Keep in mind that bias affects how people gather and frame information. Every coaching decision comes with uncertainty, errors, and possible regrets [10].
When Coaches Bench Players: The Real Triggers
Coaches make benching decisions based on multiple triggers that shape their choices. These triggers run deeper than surface-level factors and reveal complex cognitive processes that shape decision making in sport.
Performance inconsistency
Inconsistent performance stands as one of the main reasons players end up on the bench. Players who swing between brilliant and poor performances create uncertainty. This makes it tough for coaches to build reliable game strategies. They can't predict which version of the player will show up on game day.
The roots of inconsistency stem from several factors:
Disruptive thoughts that breed doubt and fear
Physical responses like shallow breathing and muscle tension that hurt performance
Focus on outcomes instead of process
Scattered preparation routines [13]
Research shows players often misunderstand how much control they have over outcomes, which leads to reactive rather than planned effort [14]. This misunderstanding becomes the root cause of erratic performance.
The physical effects matter too. Disruptive thoughts trigger long-lasting stress responses that stop athletes from performing at their best [13]. Players who stick to consistent mental and physical preparation usually keep their starting spots.
Mismatch with game plan
Players who don't fit a coach's tactical vision often watch from the sidelines. This happens whatever their individual talent level might be. Take the sixth man role in basketball—stars like Manu Ginobili came off the bench because coaches knew they would "come in against the other team's less talented players" [15].
Players earn playing time through specific roles. Coaches in team sports often bench skilled players who haven't learned to help the team defensively or tactically. Things get trickier when coaches bring in new systems. Even star players might lose their spots if they don't adapt fast enough.
Coach's perception vs. player potential
The gap between how coaches notice player potential versus real capabilities creates the biggest concern. Studies show that coaches' views of long-term potential can be substantially affected by growth differences in young athletes [1]. One study revealed coaches thought late-developing athletes had nowhere near the long-term potential of their average and early-developing teammates [1].
The numbers tell the story—coaches predicted that all but one of these late-developing athletes would stop at adolescent competition [1]. This bias affects selection choices and might keep talented but late-developing athletes out of development programs.
Research highlights that a player's current match performance strongly influences how coaches view their future potential [16]. This shows a basic flaw in decision making in sport. Current performance rarely predicts future potential accurately. Using today's performance to guess tomorrow's skill level ignores how talent develops differently for each person [16].
Studies reveal coaches trust their gut instinct to spot talented players, and their personal experience shapes how they view performance and potential [17]. This subjective approach means bench decisions often reflect the coach's personal preferences and their belief in a player's improvement rather than actual player abilities.
The Role of Pressure in Sport
Pressure pervades every part of competitive sports. It shapes decision making in sport processes that both athletes and coaches face. Athletes and coaches must handle everything from quick in-game choices to team selection decisions in a complex environment where peak performance becomes harder to maintain.
How time constraints affect decisions
Time pressure in sport means more than watching the clock tick down. It creates a mental state that changes how athletes think and process information. Basketball players, to name just one example, must make quick decisions with very little time. They need to gather information, assess the situation, and act [18]. This high-pressure environment shapes how athletes behave and perform.
Decision-makers experience a unique "double-edged sword" effect under time pressure. The original pressure can spark potential, improve focus, and speed up reactions [18]. But as pressure builds, players have less time to process information. This leads to limited mental resources and less accurate decisions [18].
Research backs up this trade-off between speed and accuracy. One study showed that both expert and novice basketball players made substantially less accurate decisions under time pressure, though their reactions were faster [18]. This "pressure-induced response acceleration" pushes athletes to make quick choices in tough situations, often sacrificing accuracy [18].
The sort of thing I love is how experience level changes these effects. Expert athletes use their competitive experience to better control their mental state and adapt to time pressure. But newer players struggle more. They have limited mental and emotional control, so they face bigger mental overload, emotional stress, and psychological pressure in similar situations [18].
Coaches face their own unique challenges with time limits. Unlike some team sports, coaches in games like Australian football can give feedback during scheduled breaks [19]. In spite of that, they still need to guide repeated decisions under pressure. So research findings help them think more rationally during matches [19].
Emotional and social pressure on coaches
Coaches deal with huge emotional and social pressure that affects how they make decisions. Just like elite athletes, coaches face performance, organizational, and personal stress that can hurt their mental health [20]. These pressures come from the many roles coaches play - technical expert, motivator, counselor, and even friend [20].
The numbers about coaches' mental health raise concerns. Research shows that all but one of these coaches across sports report past mental illness [21]. They commonly face high-risk drinking, moderate to severe sleep problems, and anxiety and depression [21].
Social pressure, especially from fans, is another reason that shapes coaching decisions. Japanese professional football data showed home teams got about 1.05 fewer fouls in games with spectators, suggesting a clear home advantage [22]. Studies also found that referees with higher anxiety levels were more easily swayed by crowd noise [23].
Job security adds to coaches' emotional stress. They worry about meeting performance goals and finding similar jobs if they're dismissed [21]. Regular workplace stress like too much work and poor work-life balance builds up over time with negative effects [21].
These pressures hurt decision quality. Coaches who can't handle stress-related problems might see their performance suffer [21]. So this damages coach-athlete relationships and players' mental state, which can lead to poor competitive results [21].
Cognitive Biases That Influence Bench Decisions
Cognitive biases shape coaching decisions without coaches noticing their influence. These mental shortcuts help process information quickly. Yet they often twist thinking and create blind spots that affect decision making in sport, especially when coaches decide which players to bench.
Recency bias
Coaches give too much importance to recent performances while they downplay historical data. This bias shows up clearly in bookmaker odds. S-shaped curves suggest teams that perform exceptionally well create unrealistic expectations for their next game. After poor performances, expectations drop too low [24]. This pattern shows how recent events overshadow overall trends.
Our brains naturally value immediate information more. A single outstanding or disappointing game can change a coach's entire opinion of a player. Research shows this bias becomes less intense as we look at older data. Coaches react most strongly to the most recent performances [24]. Players who perform below expectations affect coaches more than those who exceed them.
Confirmation bias
Coaches tend to look for, interpret, and remember information that supports what they already believe about players. Studies show this bias lies at the heart of many others. Coaches favor information that confirms their preconceptions [25].
A coach's first impression of a player creates confirmation-seeking behavior. This reinforces existing beliefs and makes coaches less likely to change their viewpoint even when faced with opposing evidence [26]. Coaches see the same information differently based on their pre-existing ideas. They might dismiss valid opinions that challenge their beliefs.
Research identifies this as a complex cognitive bias that affects even highly trained professionals. Too much information, deep-rooted beliefs, and past experiences all play a role [26]. More information sometimes leads coaches to ignore their original data-based judgments and let their biases take over.
Overreliance on intuition
Expert intuition brings value but can't escape cognitive biases like representativeness and availability. This ended up creating an "illusion of validity" [2]. Coaches often overestimate how accurate their judgments are and miss important information [26].
Research reveals that decision makers don't always know what to do when data overwhelms them. Their intuition—called "a form of unconscious intelligence"—becomes crucial at these times [3]. Problems start when coaches trust only their gut feelings without considering objective measures.
The biggest challenge isn't choosing between data or intuition. The key lies in promoting a partnership between intuitive expertise and increased information [2]. Better results come when coaches blend both approaches instead of picking sides.
What Makes a Good Decision Under Pressure?
Success in high-pressure sports comes down to decisions made in milliseconds. Players and coaches must make quick choices that determine who wins or loses. The foundation of good decisions plays a vital role in this process.
Decision making principles in sport
Good decisions in sports rely on several connected principles that happen within milliseconds. Sports psychology points to six critical steps that top decision-makers use almost instantly:
Identifying the problem and recognizing action is needed
Analyzing what's causing the problem
Understanding the desired outcome
Perusing available options
Selecting the best option
Eliminating flawed alternatives quickly [27]
Top decision-makers know how to eliminate options that won't work faster, which speeds up the whole process [27]. You can spot elite performers by their ability to make quality decisions under pressure.
The environment's predictability plays a big role in decision quality. Experienced intuition works well in highly predictable situations (high-validity environments). However, relying only on gut feelings might hurt decision-making in unpredictable scenarios (low-validity environments) [28].
Elite athletes show unique qualities that improve their decisions under pressure. They recognize patterns better, understand the game deeply, predict outcomes accurately, and filter information effectively [29]. These skills help them stay decisive during crucial moments.
Balancing data with instinct
The connection between analytical thinking and intuition is a key factor in pressured decisions. Many coaches and athletes used to see these approaches as competitors rather than teammates [4].
Studies show that starting with evidence-based information and confirming it with intuition often brings the best results [4]. Intuition guides us when we don't have all the information, while data helps prove these hunches later.
This balance depends on knowing which approach works best. Intuition often takes the lead in time-sensitive situations like crisis management. Data-driven thinking usually works better for strategic planning when time isn't tight [4].
Expert decision-makers grow both skills—they sharpen their intuition through experience and get better at interpreting data [30]. This two-sided growth builds the mental framework needed to make good decisions as pressure builds.
The goal isn't picking between data or intuition but promoting their partnership [27]. The best decisions happen when coaches blend analytical thinking with emotional intelligence and gut feelings [30].
How to Improve Decision-Making in Sport
Athletes and coaches can improve their decision making in sport capabilities through systematic training approaches. A well-laid-out strategy helps them build better decision-making processes.
Training coaches in decision frameworks
Coach education should include decision-making frameworks that build adaptive thinking skills. The Professional Judgment and Decision Making (PJDM) process gives coaches the ability to create custom teaching strategies, plan effective programs, and adapt to each athlete's needs [31]. This framework combines reflection, storytelling, simulation, and the coach's knowledge to make better decisions at micro, meso, and macro coaching levels [31].
The Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM) paradigm helps coaches handle complex situations, immediate crises, and uncertainty in training environments [32]. Research shows coaches employ three types of decisions—rule-based, simulation-based, and metaphor-based—each with unique advantages and limitations [7].
Using feedback loops and reflection
Feedback plays a vital role in developing motor skills and decision-making abilities [33]. Well-laid-out reflection practices boost coaches' confidence in their decisions. One coach said: "I trust my decisions more now that I can see I'm basing them on evidence" [34].
The right feedback depends on the performer's learning stage. Positive corrective feedback works best during the cognitive phase. The associative stage needs more prescriptive feedback. The autonomous stage requires minimal refinement-focused feedback [35].
Creating representative practice environments
Representative Learning Design (RLD) creates training environments that match real performance situations [5]. This method focuses on two key elements:
Action fidelity - Practice movements should mirror competition movements
Functionality - Practice should include the same informational cues present in competition [6]
Research proves that practice tasks with better action fidelity and functionality lead to higher quality learning and better competition results [6]. Coaches can apply this through constraints-led approaches by adjusting player, task, and environmental variables to match key performance conditions [36].
Conclusion
Making decisions in sports ended up being about more than picking who plays and who sits on the bench. These choices come from a mix of how we think, what's happening around us, and how people interact with each other. Coaches deal with huge pressure when making these calls, but most don't have proper training in how to judge and make better decisions.
There's a big gap between theory and real practice. Coaches trust their gut feelings without looking at hard facts, while researchers rarely make their findings easy to understand. This affects thousands of athletes whose careers depend on these decisions.
Our minds play tricks on us as coaches and athletes. We put too much weight on recent games because of recency bias, while confirmation bias makes us stick to what we already believe about players. These mental shortcuts might be quick but they often lead to wrong player evaluations and missed chances to develop talent.
Pressure makes everything harder. Time limits, emotional weight, and what others expect create situations where even seasoned coaches find it tough to make good calls. In spite of that, the best decision-makers know how to balance careful thinking with gut feelings. They adapt based on how predictable things are and how much time they have.
Better decision-making needs practice and a clear plan. Coaches need training in decision frameworks and feedback systems that work. Creating realistic practice settings helps too. It also promotes an environment where both data-driven choices and experience matter, which leads to better decisions under pressure.
The truth about sports decision-making shows both problems and possibilities. While it's full of complexity, bias, and pressure, we can improve these decisions by a lot through awareness, training, and balanced methods. Sports will benefit when we close the gap between what we know about making decisions and how we actually make them during games.
FAQs
Q1. How do coaches typically make decisions about benching players? Coaches consider multiple factors when benching players, including performance inconsistency, mismatch with game plans, and their perception of player potential. However, these decisions are often influenced by cognitive biases like recency bias and overreliance on intuition.
Q2. What role does pressure play in sports decision-making? Pressure significantly impacts decision-making in sports. Time constraints can lead to faster but less accurate decisions, while emotional and social pressures on coaches can affect their judgment and mental well-being, potentially compromising the quality of their decisions.
Q3. How can coaches improve their decision-making skills? Coaches can enhance their decision-making by training in decision frameworks, using feedback loops and reflection, and creating representative practice environments. Balancing analytical thinking with intuition and developing both data interpretation skills and experiential knowledge are also crucial.
Q4. What are the main models of decision-making in sports? The three main models of decision-making in sports are the information processing model, the ecological dynamics model, and the recognition-primed decision-making model. Each offers a unique perspective on how athletes and coaches make decisions in competitive environments.
Q5. Why is decision-making so important in sports? Decision-making is critical in sports because it often determines the outcome of games and impacts team dynamics and individual careers. It's a trainable skill that separates elite performers from novices and becomes increasingly important in high-pressure situations, especially towards the end of matches.
References
[1] - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292971146_Coaches'_perceptions_of_long-term_potential_are_biased_by_maturational_variation[2] - https://sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/588[3] - https://www.harvardbusiness.org/data-and-intuition-good-decisions-need-both/[4] - https://www.reworked.co/leadership/balance-intuition-and-data-to-master-the-art-of-decision-making/[5] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10232382/[6] - https://sirc.ca/articles/representative-learning-design/[7] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08924562.2023.2238297[8] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11329672/[9] - https://excelsiorgroup.co.uk/bridging-the-gap-coaching-theory-to-practice/[10] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8967937/[11] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21520704.2025.2479597?scroll=top&needAccess=true[12] - https://www.kitmanlabs.com/blog/decision-making-in-professional-sport/[13] - https://www.peaksports.com/sports-psychology-blog/how-to-increase-consistency-in-competition/[14] - https://condorperformance.com/consistency-sport-performance/[15] - https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/s12ch/why_do_some_teams_keep_great_players_on_the_bench/[16] - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17479541241270192[17] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24733938.2025.2536538?src=exp-la[18] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12380712/[19] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1469029223000638[20] - https://sportsmedicine-open.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40798-023-00655-8[21] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11393113/[22] - https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/social-pressure-football-matches-event-study-remote-matches-japan-0[23] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268125002318[24] - https://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2015/08/team-form-recency-bias-and-regression-to-the-mean/[25] - https://360scouting.com/breaking-biases/[26] - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17479541251338508[27] - https://versus.co/learn/expert-tips-to-improve-decision-making-in-sports[28] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10600061/[29] - https://www.innerdrive.co.uk/blog/decision-making-in-sport/[30] - https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescoachescouncil/2024/08/30/how-to-balance-data-driven-decision-making-and-intuitive-leadership/[31] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11781255/[32] - https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1498186/full[33] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3761887/[34] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623943.2024.2320142[35] - https://athleticperformanceacademy.co.uk/coaching-feedback-are-we-talking-too-much/[36] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9352883/